Sunday, February 04, 2007

The 'Question Refuser' Witch-hunt

The Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein has discovered a new phenomenon in our current hysterical global warming fixation (Laughing at Global Warming):

I'm sorry. I know global warming is a serious subject, particularly with the release of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But at some point in many big stories, mass hysteria takes over and the subject, no matter how serious, "jumps the shark" as they say on TV.

For me, that moment happened last week while reading a story in the Globe and Mail and coming across this hilarious nugget.

"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming. Most refused to answer the question directly."

Good gawd! Has it come to this? Are not just global warming "deniers," as Stephane Dion calls them, but mere global warming "refusers to answer the question directly" to be hunted down, as we once did witches?

He then goes on to imagine himself as an MP being questioned by the pressing media. The result is not only brilliant, but also extremely informative and well-balanced.

His imaginary press gallery encounter makes the point that MP's shouldn't allow themselves to be intimidated and goaded into making rash statements regarding this very complex issue.

However, the latest IPCC report does indeed seem to be inducing a kind of paranoia among those zealots in the Church of Kyotology.

And as Lorrie suggested, they may have finally jumped the shark in terms of credibility.

* * * *

Update: Is it just me, or does this report send chills up and down your spine too?

PARIS -- Fear of runaway global warming pushed 46 countries to line up Saturday behind France's bid for a new environmental body that could single out - and perhaps police - nations that abuse the Earth.

Notice the capital on the word "Earth"? And the word "police"?

One world environmental socialism is coming, folks. Open your eyes.

And with another reality check, Rex Murphy's 'inconvenient' comment from the other night is now available here.

Kyoto is a fraud and the world's biggest money transfer scheme. It rewards polluters such as China, Russia and India by allowing them to sell emission credits, while doing nothing to reduce their own emissions.

I'm sure some entrapeneur and central planning partnership in a province in the middle of China,

after drawing up plans, projecting profits, assessing the power needs of its nearby ten million inhabitants, and realizing that the coal fired plant (one of an estimated new 500 to go up) is required to allow the vicinity to move forward in development, giving its citizens a quality of life Canadians have come to take for granted,

Cherniak; Must you make everyting a jab at Conservatives? WTF has the question of global warming and Canada's willingness to sign on to it have to do with questions about the Prime Minister's waistline?

The main question as I see it is; Are we willing to regress to an economy like we had in the seventeenth century here in Canada in order to "influence" the rest of the world who barely notice us anyway? Canada has become so insignificant on the world stage that no matter what we do, we can not make any difference. Maybe if we had maintained our position that we enjoyed after the second world war whereby the entire world looked at Canada as a leader we could make headway. As it stands now, after decades of wishy-washy leadership and internal navel-gazing we have become a backwater nation little better than some of the third-world nations we so condescendingly look down upon.

What we need to do is chart a course that puts Canada's needs and interests first. Build our economy to the point where the rest of the world again looks to Canada for leadership rather than comic relief.

Hi Joanne -- LOL. I have a rant along the same topic. We are on the same page. Take a read when you get time -- Crux of the Matter at scrux.blogspot.com

There is just so much complaining by the Federal Liberals and MSM. Truly sounds like a witch hunt. The Liberals just have to realize, they didn't win the election. They need to do something to make this minority work -- not just do everything to bring about another expensive election. It's all about power, or lack of it, isn't it?

By the way, granddaughter seemed perky today. Even with two broken wrists, managed to hold a Wendy's burger at lunch time. She can't do much though with the left one which is the one that has to be re-set tomorrow. Anyway, she doesn't want to miss any school! Great kid. I know -- I sound like a proud grandma -- right on!

Interesting that you should concentrate on the one part of Lorrie Goldstein's column that you find amusing (did you even read it, or did you just read Joanne's synopsis?), but ignore the rest of it. You particularly might find this part of Lorrie's column amusing (I know I did, as I mentioned on Sandy's blog):

"I trust scientists to continue their dispassionate investigations of these issues, employing the professional scepticism you people think is a dirty word, but is in fact a fundamental part of what is known as the 'scientific method'.

"Again, if any of you still have your Grade 8 science textbooks, look it up."

If what you said in your post is all you could think of to say, and I doubt it, then it might seem that you have your doubts about the wisdom of trying to cut back our own ghg emmissions while ignoring those of China & India, but do not want to publicly admit to your doubts.

If you do not have such doubts, then you could show it to all of us by actually addressing the points made by Joanne, William, tony, and biff, instead of an OT jab at Stephen Harper's waistline. I look forward to a response.

Brian in Calgary,So what if China and India do nothing?Maybe, you should stop taking the garbage out in your house as it does nothing overall.

Amusing how Joanne, William, tony, and biff only concentrated on one aspect/dilemma of global warming and ignore all others. My position has always been that people should pay for what they use and what damage they cause to others. I don’t see why Canadians should be subsidizing firms that pollute and we should pay for the tab of cleaning up their mess.

The arguments put forth by some here are defeatist and make it sound like they are afraid of market competition – how very NDP of some…. I don’t see how our economy would regress to the 17th century but some have their delusions I guess.

If Joanne and friends would frame the question different, I’d be happy to have a civil discussion – at it is, I’m not interested in debating shop-worn talking point with Conservadroids.

we are all going to die, likely within the next few decades. Each and every one of us!

What is the Canadian Government going to do about it!!!

Some things, like death, taxes, and Canada's miniscule part in the emission of GHG's (assuming they're even causally connected to the Earth's warming) are a simple fact.

The liberal mindset is that all problems can be solved by big government initiatives.

Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. And I'm sorry for the liberals out there who were led to believe by their party, and the accompanying media frenzy that Canada could actually help change the Earth's temperature.

Joaane you are right as usual, This is a way for control. DDT was banned for specious reasons many years ago and has led to the deaths of millions from malaria. The report is just a summary. Why don't they release the whole thing yet? Because it is not finished. One must then question how you make conclusions before your report is finished. It makes sense to me to recycle and give tax incentives to industry to reduce pollutions, Huge government bureaucracies to regulate such things will not work

You are very good it seems at criticizing the Liberal’s sorry track record on the environment. (Not a terribly difficult task, I might add. Kind of like finding hay in a haystack.) But it would be nice to know what YOUR position is regarding the matter of addressing the issue of global warming (or climate change, if you prefer).

Perhaps you are a bleak defeatist like Biff and advocate doing absolutely nothing.

Dr. Roy you said:DDT was banned for specious reasons many years ago and has led to the deaths of millions from malaria.The report is just a summary. Why don't they release the whole thing yet? Because it is not finished.

First off, whose "they"? Whose doing the study -if this is a study?

Secondly, DDT is effective against mosquitoes that carry malaria. Churchill hailed it as "miraculous in 1945" because it did save lives. The problem however, especially in agriculture, had been with its overuse. The acummulated high environmental concentrations that in ensued led to:

a. deterioration of reproductive abilities of many animals/birds.b. resistance of many insects to DDT.

You can read about the environmental problems due to DDT in Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring

In 1973, The Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT uses expection uses essential to public health. Its still being used now in developing countries (e.g. Mexico, countries in Africa) to control disease.

Lastly, I dont know what you said initially about DDT relates to what you said with:

It makes sense to me to recycle and give tax incentives to industry to reduce pollutions, Huge government bureaucracies to regulate such things will not work

But in anycase, taking this issue as a separate matter - who would look after giving tax incentives? who would look after ensuring that Pollution is being reduced? you need political will (i.e. Beureaucracy)--otherwise, industries have nobody to be accountable to.

the Kyoto protocol is not simply a Canadian program. It involves over 160 countries - all towards the effort to reduce green house gas emissions.

You are right. The Kyoto protocol does involve 160 countries, but only 35 countries have emission targets. That means that the other 125 countries are free to continue increasing their emissions and polluting the planet.

Anonymous said...

If we can show China and India that we are serious about this problem, then they too will join.

I disagree. China is too busy building new factories and power plants in a massive effort to industrialize and overtake the United States, so it is in their interest to keep polluting. India, Russia, Brazil are industrializing as well and are increasing their emissions, while building new factories and plants as well.

My argument is that since Canada's contribution to the world's output is only 2% and does nothing to dent the world's emissions output, then why kill our economy and society to achieve unrealistic target of a 40% reduction in 5 years?

Why not instead work with our factories, industries and economy to come up with a real plan that keeps our society and economy going without putting thousands of Canadians out of work?

If the plan takes longer than the 2012 deadline, then so be it. Our emissions (2%)in the meanwhile will not kill the planet and we will have a real plan that will really allow us to clean up our own environment in a comprehensive and organized manner, while preserving our economy, industries and jobs. It will also allow us to spend our money in Canada instead of sending billions of our dollars abroad to buy emission credits from countries that are much bigger polluters than us.

Why should we sacrifice all of that just to meet a target in 5 years that 80% of the signature countries of the Kyoto agreement do not have to meet? If you can give me a logical and convincing answer, I would be the first one to change my views on Kyoto.

Rachel Carson was wrong. The UN is advocating reinstitution of DDT. Your comments are quoting junk science that has been refuted. The cost of your silly comments is the lives of 70 million children. The environmental movement likes to feel good but their wanton actions have been deadly. Suddenly they embrace this science when much of their previous assertions have proven false. Science evolves by research and empirical data, not just by consensus.

4.The cost of your silly comments is the lives of 70 million children. My comments did that...?

5. Your arguments are lop sided and biased to begin with. Why haven't you mentioned biomagnification - and the accumulation of the fat-soluble DDT metabolite DDE in animals (THATS A FACT, not an opinion).

If we can show China and India that we are seriouse about this problem, then they too will join.

I'm glad you have this much faith in human nature. Considering that we just emerged from a century that included the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Rawanda massacres, etc, I find it quite remarkable.

Canadians have no right to find out where their politicians stand on issues that they find important. If politicians don't want to answer questions of matters that their constituants find important then they never should have run for office in the first place.

"One world environmental socialism is coming, folks."

Brought to us by Jacques Chirac one of the most right-wing politicians. Even right-wingers can make sensible arguements on occassion.

Roy, you have the nerve to call yourself a doctor and man of science?I'm about to order you to my office...

What kind of person quotes from the website JunkScience.com? Do you even know who is behind that site?--------------From Sourcewatch---------------

JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Milloy defines "junk science" as "bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,' environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune." He regularly attacks environmentalists and scientists who support environmentalism, claiming that dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all "scares" and "scams."

Milloy's attacks are often notable for their vicious tone, which appears calculated to lower rather than elevate scientific discourse. That tone is noticeable, for example, in his extended attack on Our Stolen Future, the book about endocrine-disrupting chemicals by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and Peter Myers. Milloy's on-line parody, titled "Our Swollen Future," includes a cartoon depiction of Colborn hauling a wheelbarrow of money to the bank [1] (her implied motive for writing the book), and refers to Dianne Dumanoski as "Dianne Dumb-as-an-oxski." [2]

Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi's Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company's primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide. [3]

Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse "by up to four hours." In reality, there is no scientific basis for claiming that asbestos would have delayed their collapse by even a second, let alone four hours.[4].

----------------------------

So when you talk of science, I'd say that you need a major realignment....

I'd suggest you go back to School (and I'm not saying for groundhog day - although the pizza was good - came from a greek place I believe)

I think Goldstein could have summed it up this way;Ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer.You want to lighten up Joanne?Picture this: Enviro-cops of the future, dressed in green heading over to China, by boat or plane whichever takes less fuel, walking around China in Birkenstocks, demanding a reduction in GHG..or else.Sorry...just too funny!

Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself . He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research.

I have the feeling that you wil not come back and play here on this subject (I won't).I find it ironic that you hide behind a fail of "facts" when the examples that you cite are so misleading. The very point of view that you were trying to push, weakened by your own "sources".

How common is that to your thinking? I have a feeling that much of what you write is based on the most specious reasoning. I can only hope that in your professional life, you do much better.... But given to how much marketing and false claims doctors are subjected to and the lack of intellectual integrity you have shown, I have the feeling that you are a right-wing marketers wet dream...

Joanne, I have asked him to come out and play....Next time we meet in social circles, I'll do the "gauche" thing and start debating him in public... It will be quite the show - one euneuch-like Connie and a Bear debating over malaria....